The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's history of absconding, involvement in banned activities, and the medical attention provided to her.

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.533 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court Under Prevention of Terrorism Act, Ponnamallee, Chennai and enlarge the appellant on bail to secure the ends of justice.)

1. The appellant is arrayed as accused in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, Poonamallee, Chennai for the offences under Sections 148, 333, 307, 333 r/w 149 of IPC, 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC and Section 120(b) IPC r/w 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 Section 25(1b) (a) of the Arms Act 1959 and Section 3(3), 3(5), 4(b), 22(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The charges were framed against 27 accused on 23.11.2004 in C.C.No.5 of 2013 the parent case and some of the accused absconded. The copies of the charge sheet were given to the accused on 14.07.2003. The Court below issued a Non bailable warrant against the absconded accused and some were secured later. In this case, the appellant was arrested on 24.11.2002. Two PVC Pipe Bombs with match box were recovered from her possession.

2. The appellant filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2003 before the POTA Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant along with five other women accused filed another bail application before this court in Crl.A.No.335 of 2004 and this Court by an order dated 28.04.2005 had granted bail to them. When this Court released them on bail, imposed certain conditions on the appellant which is extracted here under:-

“28. In view of the above situation, there is no reason to hold that these women accused will flee from justice. Therefore, the women accused alone are ordered to be released on bail, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Designated Court, with condition to reside at Poonamallee and report to the Designated Court daily at 10.30 a.m on all working days until further orders. In regard to the other accused, we feel, that they are not entitled to bail and, as such, their appeals are dismissed. No costs.

29. If there is any violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, it is open for the respondent to move this Court by filing necessary application, for cancellation of the bail granted to the women accused.”

3. Thereafter, this Court had modified the above said conditions in Crl.M.P.No.4170 to 4172 of 2006 dated 06.09.2006 filed by the appellant and other accused and directed them to appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates. But, the appellant was absent from 23.12.2009 has not complied the conditions and she went underground and continued her activities of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. Therefore, the trial court issued a Non Bailable Warrant against the appellant on 13.07.2012.

4. On 07.12.2018, the appellant surrendered before the POTA Court, Chennai and sought recall of Non bailable warrant issued against her, since proclamation order was in force, she was remanded to Judicial custody. Thereafter, she filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.533 of 2018 before the POTA Court, Chennai. The POTA Court, Chennai analyzed all the facts and dismissed the bail application on 20.12.2018. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.533 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018.

5. The contention of the appellant is that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence. The trial Court, having accepted that the appellant was suffering from serious nature of heart ailment i.e., SVT (Supra Ventricular Tachycardia) had not shown any sympathy and compassion. Even though, her health condition needed medical attention and care. The other reason given by Court below was that, she was a member of the Banned organiz